These terms don't make sense to me. I am not a (logical) positivist or (Humean) empiricist. My methodological physicalism is a function, or corollary, of my philosophical naturalism which is a metaphysics (or speculative supposition). — 180 Proof

As I typed to @ucarr, I like this thread as it obtains deeper clarification from folks, as to their position on the notion of fundamentals. My question here will not assist the OP discussion but it will help me understand your position a little better. It's based on a recent episode of Matt Dillahunty on the call-in YouTube show, 'The Line.' A theist called in to talk to Matt about his materialist/naturalist stance. Matt interrupted him to say that he was not a philosophical materialist/naturalist (he considered the two terms synonymous) but he was a methodological materialist/naturalist. He then went on to clearly explain the difference. So, are you declaring the same as him, in the quote above? You are a methodological naturalist and not a philosophical one as you refuse the burden of proof that is assigned if you state that there IS no existent outside of the natural universe.

I got a little carried away with my vernacular. With the above salutation I’m praising what you posted. — ucarr

No problem and thank you.

I’m not ready to claim number is the minimum distinction required for the intelligibility of sensible experience, but you’ve done much to help me advance in that direction. — ucarr

I would like to pursue this a little more and press you on your thoughts on trying to take human thought down to some notion of a very 'fundamental' or 'essential' minimum. We don't even have to be restricted by the notion of human thought. Let's consider what we think would be required for any existent in the universe to be aware of, or be able to distinguish any other existent. Must all such exercises always land at the problem of hard solipsism? I have always considered solipsism to be nonsense but I still can't prove hard solipsism is incorrect, no-one currently can.
What is needed for such a notion as a quantum fluctuation or a singularity or a god origin? are the two fundamentals required, simply duration and space? and then something must be aware that such has happened so that the notion 'event' can become the next most essential happening.

Sometime later he told me, "I used to worry so much about so many things and my life was meaningless, but now when a problem arises I put myself in God's Hands and let him guide me." — jgill

I remain conflicted regarding this. I would feel really bad if I took away or really compromised the main support someone has in their life, that has became essential to them for their very sanity. Is it fair to ever compare such with a junkie and their drug supply? You know it's bad for them but they are addicted to it. Breaking that addiction can often mean hell to pay, but a better life, eventually, if they survive the change. Deconstructed theists often state how much better their life is since they abandoned their faith.
I see @rossii as someone who has become addicted to pessimism and cannot break free at the moment. So there are comparables here imo.

As I have stated before, I very much agree with Carl Sagan's "better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy." But still it can be a tough call to challenge the veracity of the beliefs of a theist, when that theist is one who is by any normal measure of such, an otherwise, really nice person who does all they can to help others when they are able to.
I will go at horrors like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, William Lane Craig and many other well established bullshitters, (and their copycat clones/drones,) with everything I can muster, but yeah, it's a lot tougher when it's otherwise good people in your sights. I tend to be far far more gentle in my approach, if indeed I decide to make any negative comment at all about their theism.

Hear ye, hear, ye! All y’all students come to order! Professor universeness is in the house! So listen up. Some foundations ‘bout to get laid. — ucarr

:lol: Not sure if I've just been complimented or insulted. I kinda like it that way.

I like this thread, as I think it pushes folks to dig deep, to try to explain some of their 'fundamentals,' when it comes to how they personally perceive the universe and their personal existence in it. it's interesting and useful to try to analyse the level of 'rationality' and 'logical rigour,' expressed whilst at the same time, attempting to self-examine your own rationale and logical rigour against others.

Imagine we were as sentient as we are now, but had no ability whatsoever to memorialise any data at all, outside of our physical beings but we did have a 100% eidetic memory ability and a memory capacity that means each of us can recall everything we have ever observed/encountered etc.

We could identify an apple and express the idea of a unitary value, by some kind of language mechanism. We can't use any kind of 'glyph' but we could say agree on an emitted sound, that represented a unitary amount, like one apple. Making the sound twice would mean two apples.
Over time, we could employ different sounds to mean different quantities and develop base number sets such as base 10 etc. But this is what we do now, yes, 'ten' and 'twenty' are just different sounds.
We don't have to 'glyph' them and write them for such to exist. So at the most fundamental level, surely its the ability to differentiate between different objects, attributes, properties, patterns that is the essential ability for a sentient to be able to experience the universe. The quantity of a particular object within a particular volume in spacetime, seems to me secondary to the more fundamental need to be able to differentiate. What would you say is the absolute minimum required to be able to differentiate one 'thing' or 'existent' from another? What minimum process is required? Would it be something like awareness of unitary durations? as a minimum fundamental. Time units must pass and something must be aware of that?

I would be interested in your response, if I respectfully compared the story of your friend to the well known 'Stockholm syndrome.' Would you find that an insulting and wholly unfair comparison. I expect your friend would.

Everything that quantum computing allegedly does is mathematical. If by physical you mean something more generic than existing at a point, then you'd have to mention what it is. — Hallucinogen

With @ucarr's indulgence and as a retired teacher of Computing Science, I would assume that ucarr is referring to quantum computings use of the very real physical phenomena of superposition.

Giant Molecules Exist in Two Places at Once in Unprecedented Quantum Experiment

In quantum computing a qbit can have more states than the two of the traditional binary bit.

"Just like classical bits, a quantum bit must have two distinct states: one representing “0” and one representing “1”. Unlike a classical bit, a quantum bit can also exist in superposition states, be subjected to incompatible measurements, and even be entangled with other quantum bits."

These states are quite 'real.' For me, its a bit like fully accepting the three physical states of solid, liquid and gas, and then being a little disturbed when you find out about 'plasma.'

Is this what you were referring to @ucarr? with:

Quantum computing has something contrary to say about the last part of your claim. — ucarr

That's how I see myself and many others: Explorers. It's no wonder you find mathematicians among rock climbers and mountaineers. — jgill

I love that statement, it's so ........ exciting, when thoughts of "well what can I do with my life, what 'meaning' or 'significance,' can I nurture and what legacy can I produce?", dominate a persons rationale.

Never mind racism: I'm surprised you haven't brought theism into this debate. — Jamal

:cool: Do you associate 'dark' chocolate with the Christian devil/satan? Do you think Jesus would only have ever chosen to eat white chocolate? :joke:

I like dark chocolate — Jamal

Welcome back to atheism! We wondered what had happened to you. Some said you caught some kind of hanovarianism or something, is that true?

the old over-sweet sickly sticky — Jamal

kind of dark chocolate. — Jamal

:yum: :yum: but my type 2 diabetes screams noooooooooooo!

I abhor rum — Jamal

I once met a beautiful girl at a party and between the two of us, we drank one bottle of 'black heart rum,' and too many bottles of Sol with a slice of lime or lemon, scrunched into the bottle.
She eventually had her wild way with me. I like rum!

Raisins I can handle. — Jamal

Covered in dark chocolate?

I think I need some therapy!
In my head, when I viewed your response. I accused you of 'chocolate racism!' :rofl:
What does your philosophy tell you about that? Apart from any ad hominem towards me, currently manifesting in your Freudian Id. You don't like dark chocolate associated with old Jamaica and rum ....... chocolate racism :rofl:
I think I will just buy more of that chocolate to defy you. Oh wait, I still have 6 bars in my fridge!

One of my fav dark choc confections is:

Absafragginlootly!!! Wise up rossii!

Seems to me it's not a very accurate list. No mention of the Covid pandemic for example.

Thank you for your clarifications, they really help me understand your general stance much more.

Genesis 1 says that God made man in their own image. I say that man makes gods in their own image. — Fooloso4

I could not agree more.

I am interested in the interpretation of texts. What these texts say about the gods is a reflection of what they say about man and In turn they have influenced how we have come to see ourselves. Genesis 1 says that God made man in their own image. I say that man makes gods in their own image.

But a theological discussion should also take into consideration the other root. Two texts to be considered are Plato's Euthyphro and Aristotle's Metaphysics. Both put philosophy above the claims of the theologians and do so by pointing to the limits of what we know, which falls short of knowledge of first things.

Another is the revolution of Modernity in the work of Bacon, Descartes, and others. Until quite recently all educated westerners read and knew the Bible. The theologians read it piously, the philosophers impiously. Theirs is a program for the perfectibility of man. To will without error. In other words, to make man into a god. What separates men and gods in Genesis is overcome. — Fooloso4

A very well formed, explained and balanced description imo.

I am pistically atheist and epistemically agnostic. Lacking knowledge I make no claims about gods but I am not uncertain in terms of what I believe and how I live. — Fooloso4

Live long and prosper! We need such thinking and thinkers to thrive and such as the MAGA style of thinking and thinkers to 'evolve' a little more, imo.

Fair enough. Sounds like your main battle is between you and yourself. Good luck, I hope you survive.

:up:

Are you any flavour of theist sir? You do of-course, not have to answer, but I am just trying to confirm whether or not you are simply making academic/technical/philosophical points or you are supporting your own or the theistic worldview of others. Either or neither is ok with me, but I would just like a little clarification, if you are willing to provide such. I know we have exchanged before and you are well qualified in philosophy, but I can't remember if you have already declared yourself theist or atheist.

Are we talking about the lineage and 'birthrights' (a far more controversial term) of real historical people or invented characters who appeared in ancient fables?
Do you think the Moses fable is the first story about unification in human history?
We have been exchanging and inventing such stories since our days as hunter gatherers.
The story of Spartacus is a story of unity as well, is it not? The unity of all Roman slaves, in common cause of overthrowing those who would enslave. Is it not the case that every group of humans who ever struggled against conquest or control by any other group of humans could be described under the title 'a story of unity?'
No doubt, some such stories are based on some real human events, that did actually happen, but had nothing to do with anything supernatural and were exaggerated and sensationalised in each new telling, depending on who was using the story and for what purpose.
There is no evidence of any significance at all, that the Moses character, as described in the bible, was ever a real person.
Is there any character from the bible that you believe 100% existed and did exactly what the bible describes they did?

So is there really no reason for an antinatalist to live? — rossii

Why don't you answer him @schopenhauer1?
Or again I prod my friend @Existential Hope, perhaps he is the better prospect for trying to help to bring rossil a little further out of his fogged and blocked thinking.
My own attempts in this thread seem to have been useless.

Brothers are often the source of division rather than unity. — Fooloso4

Are gods not a far bigger source of division rather than unity? Compared to 'brothers'?

May 2024 be a better duration for you Athena than any previous year in your existence!

But love, it doesn't matter. :grin: The placebo effect works and here is the problem with arguing that God does not exist with people who experience the blessing of that God every day. — Athena

This matters very much! For thee most important reason there is, and for a reason that you also hold as paramount, 'the truth!' It is impossible to experience the blessings of a non-existent. The problem that non-religious and anti-theistic people have, is simply that the god posit is currently unfalsifiable. That is the only hope that the theists have for the continuation of their woo woo.
All god candidates, remain utterly hidden and science cannot prove that there is absolutely no source intent, in the true origin story of our universe and a species such as us, that can generate meaning and purpose at the level we can demonstrate, which can have very significant impact on the local regions of space we can currently occupy. Humans never existed for the vast majority of the 13.8 billion years existence of the universe.

As I called on Artemitris to help me get to civilization I was being open-minded allowing myself to feel protected and seek a safer situation. — Athena

No, you were just trying to stay calm and carry on. Avoid panic in a scary situation and use your focus to think your way out. I also got lost in the Scottish hills once, with a companion, in bad weather. We had no equipment to stay in the hills overnight. We got back, almost 9 hours late, exhausted and confused, scrambling in the dark, with one small torch, losing its power. We learned to be better prepared. Nowadays, the GPS software on mobile phones, makes the chances of getting lost in the wilds, much more unlikely. Your 'Artemitris' appeal has been rendered even more unnecessary, by mobile phone tech, how's that for an example of science making god appeals more and more defunct?

Creating space for the good to happen increases the chances of good happening. — Athena

I agree, and the best way to do that is to do all we can to discover better and more robust ways, to protect human life against all scenarios that might destroy or damage it. Practical, logical, effective methodology, not appeals to non-existent sources of aid. The placebo effect is only useful for encouraging a PMA or positive mental attitude but it is a very limited and 'hit or miss' type methodology. It should only be used in desperation. It is pretty close to a 'if you are falling from a high building, you are as well to flap your arms, perhaps you will grab a flagpole on the way down,' act of desperation, just like 'oh please help me Artemitris!'

What is the nature of the literally-minded person? :shade: When we close our minds and get too uptight about what we believe, it is fanatical, no matter what we believe. — Athena

I am not suggesting being literally minded in all scenario's. But I am also saying that we should never, ever, ever value special pleading to gods as anything other that acts of sheer desperation and it is far far better to keep as calm as you can in difficult situations and use your rationale and whatever practical and logical skills you have to survive whatever threat you are facing.
In your scenario, planning your way back to civilisation and applying that plan, was much more useful and significant, than your self-comforting(placebo effect) appeal to a non-existent.

I suppose you are going to argue that the speed of light is relative to nothing, and this makes it an actual speed rather than a relative speed? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, as you are too far gone!

The speed of light is relative. — Metaphysician Undercover

The speed of light is a universal constant you complete idiot!

See how you completely dodged my 'the speed of light is not relative,' response to your 'all speeds are relative BS.' You did a quick Wiki search about 'proper speed' and then demonstrated your lack of understanding of the use of the concept. :lol:

because all speed is "relative", — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, sure, woo woo boy, the speed of light is relative :roll: How about 'proper speed,' is that also relative in your wee esoteric world? I respond to you just for the benefit of others who might be mislead by YOUR

utter nonsense — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I stand corrected. The limits due to the speed of light seemed contradictory. It's difficult to imagine "nothing" expanding. It's an age of discovery and conjecture where our intuitions - formed by everyday experiences - must give way to a deeper reality in which math replaces direct sensations. And perhaps a newer, emerging math replaces that which has served so well up to this point. — jgill

Remember that the proposal that the edge of the universe may be expanding at a superluminal speed, is a 'relative' measure. The result comes out of consideration of speed 'relative to our position.' It is not an actual speed. If you were at the edge of the universe, you would not be travelling at a superluminal speed.

Your "demonstration" was very obviously an argument through equivocation, and therefore invalid. So I am still waiting for a proper rebuttal, something more substantial than a hurling of insults. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is like trying to reason with a Kent Hovind or Ken Ham style sophist.
You are not worth any more of my time. You offer nothing more than a Pantomime style exchange:
MU: Oh no I don't! and oh no 'it' isn't!
Rational Thinkers: Oh yes you do! and oh yes 'it' is.
Ad Nauseam! bye bye!

The degree of triviality of the problem is irrelevant. That the problem is very real is all that matters. — Metaphysician Undercover

:grin: Well, when it comes to your posts, I agree that there is a very real problem, and it is in the big scheme of things, very trivial. The very real problem, is your irrational worldview of the past, current and future efficacy of all scientific endeavours. You are simply a science pessimist and folks like @Jaded Scholar (and I think, @jgill, at least, most of the time, despite his sometimes protestation that he is too old now (nonsense) to be able to still be a significant mathematical force.) and I, are science optimists or perhaps even science celebrants.

That is because we are inclined to forego the search for truth because the stand-in is already accepted as the truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

No science field or scientist (worthy of the label,) would ever, ever, ever do this. To do so would be anti-science. Unlike theists, scientists are 'real' truth seekers who MUST have no 100% 'loyalty' to ANY scientific /theory/principle or law. Again, you are making totally false claims.

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal, to demonstrate why you think my statement is "nonsense". Clearly, nothing is ever really at point A or point B, according to the principles employed in modern physics. Obviously it's your talk about moving from point A to point B which is nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again we see your lies. We all know we can assign point A and B and we can traverse the distance between them. You accept that demonstration but you will not accept that demonstration as proof that your statement of:

Then we must concede that it's not really true that "you can get from point A to point B" because one is never truly at point A or point B. — Metaphysician Undercover

is therefore piffle and nonsense.
This makes you a liar, a fake, a dishonest interlocutor.

I think we should acknowledge the power of incantations and prayer. — Athena

But we must do so in a clear and careful manner. I think we should acknowledge the positive personal placebo affect that can be gained from a positive mental attitude. If your personal PMA is based on incantation and 'prayer' then sure, I see the connection you are making, but it is also very important to state that if you are praying to a god or your incantations are attempts to invoke supernatural intercession on your behalf, then it is very likely that you are a deluded fool, but still you may nonetheless, generate the positive placebo affect you needed.

Remember, JS's tune has been changing ever since we first engaged. First JS said, "Whatever the gaps are, they are not what you described - if we could label them, we could have fixed them by now". But then what was said was: "I challenge you to point out one such problem that has been labelled, and is not something that modern mathematicians want solved...". Obviously there is a big difference between 'if they were labeled they'd be fixed', and 'if they are labeled mathematicians want to fix them'. — Metaphysician Undercover

Only in that he tried his best to show you a little more patience, despite your constant strawmannirg of the points he was making. You have already agreed that the point you made about 'uncertainty' in science is trivial, and it also may be simply down to the currently available tech, methodology or understanding needed to completely solve most or all levels/manifestations of uncertainty.
Despite this, you continue to way overblow the significance of such points and you also hold up esoteric style shinies to distract from your unimportant points, such as:

To begin with, we can ask whether it's really true to say that one is at point A, or at point B. And then we see that this is just an over simplification, an approximation. The physical principles of relativity are premised on the proposition that we cannot know anything to be at any specific point. Then we must concede that it's not really true that "you can get from point A to point B" because one is never truly at point A or point B. — Metaphysician Undercover

:rofl: I have bolded some of the utter piffle from the quote above, as an example of the type of nonsense shiny you hold up!

I don't think there is anything left in the tube for you to squeeze out, regarding our exchange on this thread or the exchange you have had with @Jaded Scholar
My opinion remains that he shot you down in flames, and you have been trying to pick up little trivial pieces since. Your anti-science stance, or perhaps a more accurate description would be, your negativity / lack of confidence, towards / in, scientific findings, rate of progress and future projections, hold almost no value or significance for me. I am sure you will find others on TPF who can find some more common ground with you than I can, or am ever likely to.

Hope you enjoyed/are still enjoying, any celebrations, get-togethers you had with family and friends!

I was expressing my delight that you enjoy history too. — Athena

Ok.

While I know Artemis is not a goddess I called upon her when I was alone and lost in the mountains. I don't care that this was just imagination. Calling upon her worked as well for me as a Christian's prayers work for the Christian. Incantations and prayers do work. There is a scientific explanation for why this is so. How we think plays an important part in how we feel and our ability to get things done. — Athena

This is nothing more than personal placebo effects, imo.

I am not sure where Fooloso4 stands on the Christian thing — Athena

Many people hold their cards close.

I was doing some reading up recently on the Minkowski model of spacetime and the Euclidean model and trying to again get a fuller understanding of the reference frames involved and the difference between the two models. Trying to drill in much deeper than surface understandings such as Minkowski space includes a time coordinate as part of every point in space. Trying to gain a clear understanding as to its handling of time dilation and length contraction with associated factors such as the Poincaré group, Lorentz transformations etc, is not easy for a non-expert in physics and maths.

I found this from wiki, an interesting point of pause and consideration:
Minkowski, aware of the fundamental restatement of the theory which he had made, said

The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth, space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.
— Hermann Minkowski, 1908, 1909[6]

Though Minkowski took an important step for physics, Albert Einstein saw its limitation:

At a time when Minkowski was giving the geometrical interpretation of special relativity by extending the Euclidean three-space to a quasi-Euclidean four-space that included time, Einstein was already aware that this is not valid, because it excludes the phenomenon of gravitation. He was still far from the study of curvilinear coordinates and Riemannian geometry, and the heavy mathematical apparatus entailed.

So does:
In mathematical physics, Minkowski space (or Minkowski spacetime) combines inertial space and time manifolds with a non-inertial reference frame of space and time into a four-dimensional model relating a position (inertial frame of reference) to the field.
That combines a non-accelerating reference frame with a reference frame that does consider acceleration fully hold up, if spacetime is curved?

But, in Minkowski spacetime it seems progression in the time variable requires no movement in space. — jgill

But the space itself is expanding within any duration of time. Is it more accurate to say that every 4D coordinate is moving away from its adjacent points during every time duration or that 'new' 4D spacetime coordinates are being formed in Minkowski spacetime, within any instant of time duration? So what is 'no movement in space,' really referring to. I will understand If I am making some physics or maths 101 errors here. I appreciate your tolerance, if that is the case and I hope I am not causing you too much exasperation.

Same with me, I was never a theist, I was bemused and intrigued as a youngster about the issue.
As soon as I could analyse what the religious were throwing at me, I soon became an atheist and have increased my credence level regarding the atheist position ever since.
I also think that time and an ever increasing spread of education, are our best hopes our species has, to free ourselves from the more pernicious affects of all forms of religion and theosophism.

Just to add to the general miasma. How about this one.
We use the term 'chocolates' to refer to chocolate confection with various fillings and of various sizes and shapes, normally stored in a box formation, hence 'box of chocolates.'

As a business idea, (around 23 years ago) some of my S6 pupils, as part of a IDL (Inter-Departmental Learning) project, between the business dept and the computing dept, came up with the idea of merging a group of chosen chocolates, traditionally found in a box formation, into a bar or block style.
They proposed that their chosen chocolates would have different contents, be different sizes and shapes, but all be connected in a single bar/block style and be wrapped in the same way as a traditional 'bar' of square or rectangular sections. They soooooo struggled between calling it a bar or block or group or palette of chocolate. They ended up with naming it the zoob zoob chocolate palette. Whaddyafink? They got quite good grades for their project. But alas, I have not seen the zoob zoob chocolate palette in the shops, since I moved on to a new computing class of S6 in 2001.

As long as they are not worms which are covered in chocolate. Would they be called chocolate worm bars?? Good Grief! Gaps in our knowledge, everywhere! :gasp:

The trouble is, we don't use the word "candy" in the UK so anything covered in chocolate is a chocolate bar by default. — Jamal

Well, we wouldn't call a club biscuit, a chocolate bar, even though it's covered in chocolate, or should we? I suppose a Kit Kat blurs them lines between chocolate biscuit and chocolate bar and I won't get into the big Jaffa cake debate! is a Jaffa cake really a biscuit or is it truly a cake? Certainly not a chocolate bar, agree?

Spiderman is not real!!!! :scream: Just as well that I decided to stop building that spidey holy place of worship in my garden. It's so disappointing when it turns out that there are no superheros, that give a f*** about us or understand how special we are, akin to how special many of us want to be made to feel, as often as we can make it happen. :lol: When will the human race move beyond such nonsense Tom?
I agree with sooooooo much of the content of @Athena's posts but I think that the ancient fables/stories she see's such value in have caused far more trouble than they were ever worth.
I even had a 'friend of a friend,' who is a religious education teacher, (who has became a regular member of my drinking group) recently say to me, when he was a little drunk, but still with all the depth of profundity that he could muster, that he had genuinely made a person to god deal with god that he would be spared death.
This is what unconfirmed rumours about the existence of god and those who are in touch with such, can do to the thinking of what seems to be, otherwise quite rational people.
I of course made the mistake of asking him, exactly what took place in this exchange with god. So I then had to listen for the next 20 minutes as he explained 'his dream that was a real encounter with god.' :roll: :death:

I don't brag about owning titles. — Metaphysician Undercover

The way you put that sentence, seems to me like an attempt to conflate a title such as doctor or professor with a title such as Earl, Duke or Lord. So I just include this sentence to dilute that possible conflation as much as possible. Doctor or professor is a merit based title, Earl, Duke, Lord or Knight, never has been imo, and never will be. Just saying!

If I was charging you a fee for my work I would show you credentials so that you'd feel confident in paying me. — Metaphysician Undercover

What field of expertise can you offer service in which is worth anyone paying for?

I offer you my work on a take it or leave it basis, the choice is yours. You'll have to judge my work for yourself however, or else you just demonstrate prejudice, and this judgement requires critical analysis which you are showing a lack of in your rejection. — Metaphysician Undercover

So you do realise then that I already rejected your so called 'work,' ages ago. You are now just trying to special plead that I consider it more fully on threat of you thinking that I am prejudiced against you and i have not critically analysed your viewpoints to YOUR satisfaction. Perhaps you now know what I meant when I suggested that you were a bit of a deluded diva.

Here, I'll explain in simple terms for simple minds. — Metaphysician Undercover

:lol: This from the guy who does not engage in ad hominem.

Zeno's arrow paradox shows that there is an incompatibility between occupying a space (having a location), and being in motion. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in its common representation, says that the more accurately a particle's position (location) is known, the less accurately its momentum (a property inherent to its motion) can be known, and vise versa. Do you see the resemblance between these two? — Metaphysician Undercover

:lol: What is laughable, is that you really do think you are making a really important statement here!
Any uncertainty principle shows a current problem that we have no current solution to Sherlock. It does not mean that science is absolutely incapable of ever finding a work around or a direct solution to such issues. You make mundane points that most on TPF are already very familiar with and you think you are being deep and profound. The uncertainty principle does not stop me from traversing a distance without any demonstration that I need infinite acceleration to do so, under some mathematical model of an ancient like Zeno, who lived during a relative mathematical infancy.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not an impenetrable impedance to all future scientific attempts to progress in our understandings of the origins, workings and structure of the universe.

It is clearly not the case that the mathematicians have resolved Zeno's arrow paradox. They have produced a workaround which is adequate for many applications, but the consequence of this workaround is the uncertainty principle. The very problem which Zeno pointed out more than 2000 years ago persists today as the uncertainty principle. — Metaphysician Undercover

So what? Who cares? We keep going ya muppet! (since you have let ad hominem back in)
We have progressed from Zeno to Heisenberg. Do you really think our scientific findings will end there?
Get with the program you surrender monkey!

You aren't into history, are you? — Athena

Yes I am, what point/judgement about me, are you trying to make by those words?

We can validate this because people were recording their political agreements and histories, and even primitive tribes left evidence of their existence and movements.
However, the stories are not without bias and it takes a lot of digging to be sure which story is the most accurate. — Athena

So yeah, we have to separate reliable evidence, and those ancients who wrote down lies and claimed they were writing truth. Evidence for the existence of Abraham is not enhanced by evidence that a town or city he was placed in existed, or that Babylon or Sumer existed and we know the names of some of their Kings etc and some of the events that may or may not have happened, in the exact way they were memorialised/reported. Archeology can certainly find artefact's from of a time or a place, and use them to infer or gather data, but archeology has not found any indicator whatsoever, that is very compelling evidence, that the biblical character of Abraham ever existed. Same with the biblical moses, jesus, the disciples, Paul etc etc. Was Jesus also an illiterate? Why are there no writings signed Jesus Christ or the Aramaic equivalent? We also have no evidence at all, that the god Zeus or the goddess Athena existed, even though we accept that the ancient Greeks and ancient Greece existed and we know some of their names and some of the events that may or may not have actually happened. You agree, yes?

Most people appreciate having the gaps in their thought pointed out to them, that's a sign of healthy intellectualism, and the route to self-improvement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, if it's pointed out by those who are working hard to close/narrow such gaps, but not when it comes from the 'na na na na na,' crowd of noodnik thinkers who do nothing to help and everything they can to hinder because they are so envious of the real experts that they utterly failed to become.
What significant academic quals do you hold MU and what field of expertise do you have that others may benefit from? Would you rather stay under the covers?